ECOSYSTEM PROFILE

POLYNESIA-MICRONESIA BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT

FINAL VERSION MAY 2007

ii

Prepared by:

Conservation International-Melanesia Center for Biodiversity Conservation

In collaboration with:

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program

With the technical support of:

The Bishop Museum- Honolulu Conservation International-Center for Applied Biodiversity Science

The Nature Conservancy – Micronesia Program Societé d’Ornithologie de la Polynésie

Wildlife Conservation Society – Pacific Islands

And of the Ecosystem Profile Preparation Team:

James Atherton Joanna Axford

Nigel Dowdeswell Liz Farley

Roger James Penny Langhammer

François Martel Harley Manner David Olson

Samuelu Sesega

Assisted by the following experts and contributors:

FIJI ISLANDS Aaron Jenkins Alex Patrick Aliki Turagakula Alivereti Bogiva Alumita Savabula Craig Morley Dale Withington Dick Watling Etika Rupeni Gunnar Keppel Guy Dutson Jo Ceinaturaga Jone Niukula Kesaia Tabunakawai Linda Farley Manoa Malani Marika Tuiwawa Philip Felstead Randy Thaman Roger James Sairusi Bulai

Timoci Gaunavinaka Vilikesa Masibalavu FRENCH POLYNESIA Claude Carlson Claude Serrat Eli Poroi Francis Murphy Georges Sanford Hinano Murphy Isabelle Vahirua-Lechat Jacques Iltis Jean-François Butaud Jean-Yves Meyer Maxime Chan Mehdi Adjeroud Neil Davies Olivier Babin Paula Meyer Philippe Raust Philippe Siu Tea Frogier Vernance Sanford

Willy Tetuanui Yves Doudoute HAWAII & USA Allen Allison Ana Rodrigues Art Whistler Audrey Newman Dieter Mueller-Dombois Jim Space John Pilgrim Lucius Eldredge Mark Merlin Robert Cowie Robert Waller Tom Brooks MICRONESIA Anne Brook Bill Raynor Bob Beck Brian Vander Velde David Hinchley

iii

Deborah Barker Harley Manner Herman Francisco Ishmael Lebehn Joseph Acfalle Lois Engelberger Lucille Apis-Overhoff Nancy Vander Velde Okean Ehmes Roseo Marquez Willy Kostka WESTERN POLYNESIA Asipeli Palaki Bronwyn Sesega Cedric Schuster

Easter Galuvao Emily Waterman Faumuina Saililimalo Pati Liu Gerald MacCormack Hans Decker Thulstrup Joshua Seamon Liz Dovey Mary Power Matt McIntyre Myriam Philip Seuili Vainuupo Semese Alefaio Tom Twining Ward Toni Tipamaa Walter Vermuelen

OTHER LOCATIONS Elspeth Wingham Greg Sherley Michael Brown Patricia Vargas Casanova Phillipe Keith

Document compiled by James Atherton

iv

CONTENTS Executive Summary..............................................................................................................v Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................... 2

Biological Importance of the Hotspot................................................................................. 7

Conservation Outcomes .................................................................................................... 19

Socioeconomic Features ................................................................................................... 27

Synopsis of Threats and Constraints................................................................................. 36

Synopsis of Current Investments ...................................................................................... 45

CEPF Niche for Investment .............................................................................................. 52

CEPF Investment Strategy and Program Focus................................................................ 55

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 70

Logical Framework........................................................................................................... 71

Abbreviations Used in the Text ........................................................................................ 74

References......................................................................................................................... 76

Appendices........................................................................................................................ 83

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world's biodiversity hotspots. CEPF is a joint initiative of Conservation International, l'Agence Française de Développement, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank. A fundamental purpose is to ensure that civil society, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community groups, and private sector partners, is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots. An additional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complement existing strategies and frameworks established by national governments. The purpose of the ecosystem profile is to provide an overview of biodiversity values, conservation targets or “outcomes” and causes of biodiversity loss coupled with an assessment of existing and planned conservation activities in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot. This information is then used to identify the niche where CEPF investment can provide the greatest incremental value for conservation. The ecosystem profile recommends broad strategic funding directions that can be implemented by civil society to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the hotspot. Applicants propose specific projects consistent with these broad directions and criteria. The ecosystem profile does not define the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose in the region, but outlines the strategy that will guide those activities. The Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot includes all the islands of Micronesia, tropical Polynesia, and Fiji. Included in this enormous expanse of ocean are more than 4,500 islands, representing 11 countries, eight territories and one U.S. state (Hawaii). Despite its large marine coverage, 2.6 times larger than the continental United States, it is one of the smallest hotspots in terms of terrestrial land area, covering only 47,239 square kilometers or about the size of Switzerland. The total population of the hotspot is approximately 3,120,000 but 65 percent of the population is found in Hawaii and Fiji. Not all countries and territories in the hotspot are eligible for CEPF funds; only countries that are World Bank members and signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity are eligible. Thus six countries and territories in the hotspot, including Nauru; the U.S. state of Hawaii; the U.S. territories of American Samoa and Guam; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Tuvalu are ineligible. While this ecosystem profile includes data and analysis from all 20 countries and territories in the hotspot, conservation outcomes and strategic directions only refer to the 14 eligible countries and territories. However, it is hoped that this profile will be used to leverage funds to conserve threatened species and sites in countries and territories not eligible for CEPF investment. The geographic complexity and isolated nature of Pacific islands have led to the development of extremely high levels of endemism in this hotspot. The various mechanisms of island biogeography and evolution have been able to work particularly clearly in the Pacific free of continental influences. However, the extreme vulnerability of

vi

island ecosystems and species to impacts such as habitat destruction and invasive species has resulted in the flora and fauna of this hotspot being amongst the most endangered in the world. In fact, species extinction rates in this hotspot approach the highest in the world, especially for birds and land snails. Plant, bird, and invertebrate diversity in the hotspot are particularly high, but diversity of non-volant mammals, reptiles and amphibians is low. Overall the hotspot is home to approximately 5,330 native vascular plant species, of which 3,074 (57 percent) are endemic, 242 breeding native bird species of which approximately 164 (68 percent) are endemic, 61 native terrestrial reptiles, of which 30 (49 percent) are endemic, 15 native mammals, all bats, 11 (73 percent) of which are endemic, and three native amphibians, all endemic. Although there are no true native freshwater fish, at least 96 marine species are found as adults in freshwater and 20 species are endemic. Knowledge of invertebrate diversity is very patchy, but for many groups that have been studied, it is high. Land snail diversity is particularly high with over 750 species in Hawaii alone and perhaps 4,000 species in the insular tropical Pacific. The major threats to Pacific biodiversity are human induced and include invasive species, habitat alteration and loss, destructive harvest techniques, and over-exploitation of natural resources. An analysis of data on the globally threatened species in the hotspot indicates that habitat loss and invasive species are the two most serious threats. The impact of extreme natural events such as cyclones, drought, and fire may also be significant at times. The future impact of climate change and sea level rise is uncertain at this stage but could be significant, especially on the low lying islands and atolls which could disappear completely. While many of the threats to native Pacific biodiversity are similar to those in other tropical regions of the world, Pacific island biotas are particularly vulnerable because the biota evolved in the absence of mammalian predators, grazing herbivores, and many of the diseases that evolved on larger land masses. Furthermore, the small size and isolated nature of Pacific islands results in increased vulnerability to disturbances that may be relatively minor on a larger land mass. There are a number of constraints to mounting an effective response to environmental threats in most countries in the hotspot. Except in the larger, more developed states and territories, the major constraints include a paucity of technical infrastructure and expertise, a lack of current information on the state of natural resources and biodiversity, a poor understanding of environmental issues among the general population, and poor integration of environmental issues in national development planning. An analysis of current investments and strategies in the hotspot indicates that significant implementation gaps remain in a number of areas. Terrestrial conservation efforts in general and species and site conservation efforts in particular are chronically under-funded. The taxonomic groups that have been least well supported include the flying foxes, land snails, and plants. Furthermore, while a number of national and regional conservation strategies have been developed, they need significant resources for implementation. This ecosystem profile includes a commitment and emphasis on using conservation outcomes—targets against which the success of investments can be measured—as the

vii

scientific underpinning for determining CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for investment. Conservation outcomes can be defined at three scales – species, site, and landscape, reflecting a simplification of a complex hierarchical continuum of ecological scales. The three scales interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites in landscapes. They are also logically connected. If species are to be conserved, the sites on which they live must be protected and the landscapes or seascapes must continue to sustain the ecological services on which the sites and the species depend. Given threats to biodiversity at each of the three levels, quantifiable targets for conservation can be set in terms of extinctions avoided, sites protected and, where appropriate, biodiversity conservation corridors created or preserved. This can only be done when accurate and comprehensive data are available on the distribution of threatened species across sites. However, in the context of the archipelagic Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, only species and site outcomes have been defined since landscape-scale outcomes are not considered appropriate. Species outcomes in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot include all those species that are globally threatened according to the 2003 IUCN Red List, the most recent Red List at the time the outcomes were defined in the profiling process. These comprise 476 globally threatened terrestrial species in all the countries and territories of the hotspot. However, almost half (232 out of 476) of the threatened species in the hotspot are in countries and territories that are ineligible for CEPF funding. The vast majority of the species in ineligible countries (214 species and almost half of all threatened species in the hotspot) are in Hawaii alone. The remaining 244 species in CEPF eligible countries define the universe of species outcomes for this hotspot. Species outcomes have been prioritized into six classes based on three major criteria: Red List Category; Taxonomic Distinctiveness (a measure of the uniqueness of a species); and need for species-focused action (i.e. a measure of whether a species needs special attention, such as the control of invasive species or harvesting). Based on this objective analysis, 67 species belonging to priority classes one and two were selected for CEPF investment. However, it should be noted that given limitations in data availability and quality, the prioritization is an initial attempt and may change as more accurate data become available. Site outcomes were determined by identifying the sites in CEPF eligible countries that contain populations of at least one globally threatened species. Key data sources for this analysis included published scientific articles, the IUCN-World Conservation Union regional ecosystem survey, a number of Geographical Information Systems data layers, data from the World Database on Protected Areas, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan reports, ecological survey data, subregional workshops and communications with many scientists and stakeholders. Data on restricted-range species and globally significant congregations were not available for this analysis. In total, 161 sites were identified for the hotspot, each containing at least one globally threatened species. The 161 sites are too many for one fund to handle alone. Consequently, sites were prioritized based on irreplaceability (whether the site contains

viii

taxa found in no other site); and vulnerability. Due to a lack of comprehensive threat data for each site, the threat status of a species found within the site was used as a proxy for vulnerability. A total of 60 sites were identified for CEPF support. A niche for CEPF investment has been developed based on an analysis of three major themes: species and site outcomes; major threats to endangered species; and current environmental investments together with national and regional conservation strategies. Major findings of this analysis include the following: our knowledge of the hotspot's biodiversity is patchy, incomplete and poorly managed; terrestrial species and site conservation is currently weakly supported; conventional forms of protected area management have been largely ineffective; and invasive species are the major threat to native biotas, but tackling invasive species is relatively poorly supported. Finally, while there are many existing regional and national conservation strategies, these strategies need much stronger support for implementation. The niche of CEPF in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot will be to catalyze action by civil society to counteract threats to biodiversity, especially from invasive species, in key biodiversity areas in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot. The geographic focus for CEPF intervention in the hotspot will be on CEPF eligible countries only. The three primary strategic directions are:

• prevent, control and eradicate invasive species in key biodiversity areas; • strengthen the conservation status and management of 60 key biodiversity areas;

and • Build awareness and participation of local leaders and community members in

the implementation of protection and recovery plans for threatened species.

A fourth strategic direction is to provide strategic leadership and effective coordination of CEPF investment through a regional implementation team and therefore complements the three primary strategic directions. A number of necessary interventions or investment priorities to achieve each strategic direction are outlined in the full ecosystem profile. In conclusion, the species and ecosystems of the hotspot are among the most highly threatened in the world and yet terrestrial conservation activities are severely under funded and our biological knowledge of the hotspot is very incomplete and poorly managed. There are significant opportunities for CEPF to fund actions that empower the stewards of the biodiversity of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot - the island communities and institutions - to have better knowledge, tools, and capacities to conserve biodiversity more effectively, especially those species and sites that are globally threatened. Since Pacific communities are still highly dependent on biological resources for survival, the achievement of biodiversity conservation outcomes is critical not only for the maintenance of essential ecosystem function, but is also essential for sustaining human livelihoods.

1

INTRODUCTION The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is designed to safeguard the world's threatened biodiversity hotspots in developing countries. It is a joint initiative of Conservation International (CI), l'Agence Française de Développement, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the government of Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank. Conservation International administers the global program through a CEPF Secretariat. CEPF supports projects in biodiversity hotspots, the biologically richest and most endangered areas on Earth. Conservation International administers the global program through a CEPF Secretariat.A fundamental purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in the hotspots. An additional purpose is to ensure that those efforts complement existing strategies and frameworks established by local, regional, and national governments. CEPF promotes working alliances among community groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government, academic institutions, and the private sector, combining unique capacities and eliminating duplication of efforts for a comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in that it focuses on biological areas rather than political boundaries and examines conservation threats on a corridor-wide basis to identify and support a regional, rather than a national, approach to achieving conservation outcomes. Corridors are determined through a process of identifying important species, site and corridor-level conservation outcomes for the hotspot. CEPF targets transboundary cooperation when areas rich in biological value straddle national borders, or in areas where a regional approach will be more effective than a national approach. CEPF provides civil society with an agile and flexible funding mechanism complementing funding currently available to government agencies. The Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, which is one of the smallest hotspots in terms of land area, covering only 47,239 km², stretches from the Mariana and Palau archipelagos in the west to Easter Island (Rapa Nui) in the east, and from the Hawaiian Islands in the north to the Cook Islands, Tonga, and Niue in the south. It qualifies as a global hotspot by virtue of its high endemicity and extremely high degree of threat. The hotspot was first identified as a global biodiversity hotspot in an analysis of biodiversity hotspots by CI conducted between 1996 and 1998 (CI 1999). The thousands of small, isolated islands that make up the hotspot are some of the most vulnerable in the world and Oceania has one of the highest proportions of Endangered species per unit land area of any region (Dahl 1986) and the largest number of documented species extinctions on the planet since 1600 (Given 1992). The Ecosystem Profile The purpose of the ecosystem profile is to provide an overview of biodiversity values, conservation targets or “outcomes,” and causes of biodiversity loss coupled with an assessment of existing and planned conservation activities in the hotspot. This information is then used to identify the niche where CEPF investment can provide the

2

greatest incremental value for conservation. The ecosystem profile recommends broad strategic funding directions that can be implemented by civil society to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the hotspot. Applicants propose specific projects for funding consistent with these broad directions and criteria. The ecosystem profile does not define the specific activities that prospective implementers may propose in the region, but outlines the strategy that will guide those activities. Applicants for CEPF funding are required to prepare detailed proposals that specify the proposed activities and the performance indicators that will be used to monitor project success. BACKGROUND The Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot includes all the islands of Micronesia, tropical Polynesia and Fiji (Figure 1). Included in this enormous expanse of ocean are more than 4,500 islands, representing 11 countries, eight territories and the U.S. state of Hawaii. Despite its large marine coverage, 2.6 times larger than the continental United States, it is one of the smallest hotspots in terms of terrestrial land area, covering only 47,239 km² or an area about the size of Switzerland. The total population of the hotspot is approximately 3,106,000 but 65 percent of the population is found in Hawaii and Fiji. Table 1 is a summary of key geographical data for the 20 political units or Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) in the hotspot. The ecosystem profile and five-year investment strategy for the Polynesia-Micronesia hotspot was developed by the CI Melanesia Program in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP). In addition, the profiling process incorporated regional stakeholder expertise through four subregional roundtables and two hotspot-wide workshops. The subregional workshops were held in Fiji, French Polynesia, Micronesia, and Western Polynesia and coordinated by the Wildlife Conservation Society, Te Ora Fenua (Tahiti Conservation Society), the University of Guam with the support of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Pacific Environment Consultants. More than 85 experts and contributors assisted in analyzing current threats to biodiversity, inventorying conservation and development investment taking place within the region, and defining the geographic priorities for CEPF investment. This profile focuses on conservation outcomes—biodiversity targets against which the success of investments can be measured—as the scientific basis for determining CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for investment. Such targets must be achieved by the global community to prevent species extinctions and halt biodiversity loss. These targets are defined at three levels: species (extinctions avoided), sites (areas protected) and landscapes (corridors created). As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, these targets become demonstrable results or outcomes. While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured. CI’s

3

Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS) is coordinating the definition of conservation outcomes across the global hotspots. Not all political units in the hotspot are eligible for CEPF funds; only countries that are borrowing members of the World Bank and are signatories to the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are eligible. Thus six countries and territories in the hotspot, including Nauru, the U.S. state of Hawaii and the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and Tuvalu are ineligible. Eligibility is indicated in the final column of Table 1. While this ecosystem profile includes data and analysis from all 20 countries and territories in the hotspot, conservation outcomes and CEPF strategic directions only refer to the 14 eligible countries and territories. However, it is hoped that this profile will be used to leverage funds from other donors to conserve globally threatened species and sites in countries and territories not eligible for CEPF funds. History of the Hotspot Until the establishment of SPREP as the regional agency with the mandate to protect and improve the Pacific islands environment, most conservation activity in the Pacific was conducted in an ad hoc manner at the national level. The need for a Pacific-wide regional environmental agency to coordinate effort was first formally recognized in 1969 at an IUCN-World Conservation Union Conference in Noumea, New Caledonia. However, it was not until 1982 that a formal agreement established SPREP as a program hosted by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), formerly the South Pacific Commission, in Noumea. In January 1992 SPREP moved from New Caledonia to its permanent headquarters in Apia, Samoa (SPREP 2001). Table 1. Key Geographical Data for Hotspot Political Units Hotspot Country, State or Territory

Physical Geography

Land Area (km2)1

Population1

GDP/ capita2 (US$)

CEPF eligibility

MICRONESIA 3,214 495,416 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

volcanic/uplifted coral 471 69,221 10,401 No

Federated States of Micronesia

volcanic/coral atolls 701 107,008 1,822 Yes

Guam volcanic/uplifted coral 541 154,805 20,164 No

Kiribati low and uplifted coral atolls 811 84,494 625 Yes

Marshall Islands coral atolls 181 50,840 1,961 Yes Nauru uplifted coral atoll 21 9,919 7,292 No

Palau volcanic/uplifted coral 488 19,129 8,000 Yes

FIJI volcanic/a few coral islands and atolls

18,333 900,000 5,880 Yes

POLYNESIA 24,941 1,874,703

4

American Samoa volcanic/coral atolls 200 57,291 3,833 No

Cook Islands volcanic/coral atolls 237 18,027 4,727 Yes

Easter island Volcanic 1662 3,0002 6,000 Yes

French Polynesia volcanic/low and uplifted coral atolls 3,521 245,405 17,398 Yes

Hawaii volcanic/coral atolls 16,6423 1,224,3983 26,000 No

Niue uplifted coral 259 1,788 4,375 Yes

Pitcairn Islands volcanic/low and uplifted coral atolls 39 48 - Yes

Samoa Volcanic 2,935 200,000 5,854 Yes Tokelau low coral atolls 12 1,537 2,759 Yes

Tonga volcanic/uplifted coral 649 100,000 6,992 Yes

Tuvalu coral atolls 26 9,043 571 No Wallis and Futuna volcanic/low coral 255 14 ,166 1,666 Yes TOTAL HOTSPOT 46,488 3,270,119 14 of 20

Key: - no current data available Sources: 1. UNDP Human Development Report 2005 2. SPC 2003a (www.spc.int/demog/demogen/english01-2/recentstats/2003/03/poster.xls) 3. Crocombe, R. 2001. The South Pacific. USP, Fiji. 4. U.S. Census Bureau 2003. (http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates.php)

The development of the profile, especially the investment strategy, has been guided by a number of regional and national environmental management plans and strategies. The major regional strategy is the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation 2003-2007 (SPREP 2003a). The Action Strategy is a five-yearly strategy that reflects the approach of “mainstreaming nature conservation.” The strategy provides a framework for mainstreaming conservation into all development sectors and involving partnerships between conservationists, governments, the private sector, and civil society. The strategy provides broad 30-year goals under each of the three main pillars of sustainable development: environment, cconomy, and society. Under each broad goal are five-year objectives or targets in the short term.

5

Figure 1. Map of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

6

At the national level many countries have undergone a series of conservation planning exercises. In the early 1990s SPREP executed a regional project to develop State of the Environment Reports and then National Environmental Management Strategies (NEMS) for seven PICTs. More recently, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) implemented a regional project on the development of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP) reports for 13 of the 14 independent countries in the region. The development of NBSAP reports is an obligation under Article 6 of the CBD. The Polynesia-Micronesia profile was developed by a Profile Development Team. During the process, three subregional roundtable meetings were conducted, one in each of the following subregions: Western Polynesia, Fiji, and Micronesia. More than 50 participants from government and nongovernmental and scientific organizations participated in these roundtables. In addition, two expert roundtables involving participation from key regional environmental, educational, and donor agencies were conducted in Apia, Samoa. The development of the profile dovetailed with the development of the “Living Archipelagos” initiative of the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. The objective of the Living Archipelagos initiative is to identify and help protect a select group of priority sites of high ecological value that can be quickly saved with relatively modest investment. The Living Archipelagos Program will use the findings of this profile to help identify up to 10 of the most biologically important archipelagos, including both terrestrial and marine biological diversity, in the region. Geography of the Hotspot The Pacific region is characterized by high levels of biodiversity and species endemism, extreme vulnerability to a wide range of natural disasters, and a diversity of cultures and languages, traditional practices, and customs focused on the environment (UNEP 1999). There is still a high cultural and economic dependence on marine and terrestrial resources for daily needs such as food, water, shelter, and medicine. Biodiversity conservation is therefore critical for social and economic development, as well as for the maintenance of essential ecosystem function. The islands of the hotspot display great diversity in origin, geology, size and climate. Most of the islands in the region were originally formed from geological “hotspot” and fracture zone volcanism (Allison and Eldredge 1999). Physically the islands can be classified into several categories: younger volcanic islands, older volcanic islands, almost atolls (which have volcanic remnants surrounded by atoll islands), coral atolls, raised limestone islands (usually elevated atolls), mixed volcanic and limestone islands, and continental islands derived from fragments of old continental plates (SPREP 1992). A number of islands are currently or potentially active volcanically, including islands in Hawaii, Tonga, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana islands (Allison and Eldredge 1999). The hotspot can be considered to have a maritime tropical climate, with relatively warm and constant temperatures except at high elevations. The climate is influenced largely by two major external factors: atmospheric currents and ocean currents. Internal influences

7

such as island shape, size and relief are also important but variable from island to island (Nunn 1994). Rainfall varies significantly horizontally across the hotspot, vertically within high islands, and seasonally. The wettest area is in the northwest of the hotspot in western Micronesia and the driest part of the hotspot is in the east around the Marquesas and Easter Island where an anticyclone persists for most of the year. Irregular climatic phenomena such as cyclones and the El Niño southern oscillation are important climatic events in most parts of the hotspot and have a significant environmental impact at times. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE HOTSPOT The geographic complexity and isolated nature of Pacific islands have led to the development of extremely high levels of endemism in this hotspot. The various mechanisms of island biogeography and evolution have been able to work particularly clearly in the Pacific free of continental influences (Dahl 1986). However, the extreme vulnerability of island ecosystems and species to impacts such as habitat destruction and invasive species has resulted in the flora and fauna of this hotspot being amongst the most endangered in the world. In fact, species extinction rates in this hotspot approach the highest in the world, especially for birds (Steadman 1995) and land snails (Cowie 2001). The present distribution of flora and fauna across the Pacific has resulted from the complex interplay of many factors in both time and space (Dahl 1984, Stoddart 1992). Endemism is a product of isolation, marginal environments, chance dispersal events like storms, and time (SPREP 1992). One of the key factors is the distance of an island from the major centers of evolution and distribution, such as Southeast Asia, the Indo-Malay Peninsula, Australia or America (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Dahl 1980). The closer an island is to a center of evolution, the greater the opportunity that species from that area will have been able to colonize it (Dahl 1980). Other factors influencing Pacific biogeography are island size, type and precipitation (Mueller-Dombois 2002) and deep-sea trenches, such as the Tonga trench (Stoddart 1992). The origins of most Pacific biodiversity are in Southeast Asia and New Guinea with a general attenuation in marine and terrestrial biodiversity from west to east. Thus there are no native amphibians east of Fiji and there are no native terrestrial mammals east of the Cook Islands, except for a single Hawaiian sub-species (a bat which originated from the Americas). The eastward diminution of biodiversity reflects several factors. The filtering effect of the ocean would be expected to filter out species that are not adept at crossing ocean gaps. Furthermore, island size and rainfall generally decrease eastwards and the greatest complexity of island types occurs in the west with continental islands not occurring east of Fiji (SPREP 1992). Last but not least, humans, who played a major role in the dispersal of species into the Pacific, migrated predominately from west to east (SPREP 1992). Biodiversity of the Hotspot In this section a brief summary of the terrestrial biodiversity of the hotspot is provided. The focus here is on hotspot biogeography and endemic species. In the subsequent section on ecosystems the emphasis is on the habitats, specifically on the biomes and

8

ecosystems, of Pacific islands. In the later chapter on conservation outcomes, the focus is on the globally threatened species listed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2003) at the time of the expert roundtabes. Plant, bird, and invertebrate diversity in the hotspot are particularly high, but diversity of non-volant mammals, reptiles, and amphibians is low. Overall the hotspot is home to approximately 5,330 native vascular plant species (Allison and Eldredge 2004), of which 3,070 (58 percent) are endemic, 242 breeding native bird species of which approximately 164 (68 percent) are endemic, 61 native terrestrial reptiles, of which 30 (49 percent) are endemic, 15 native mammals, all bats, 11 (73 percent) of which are endemic, and three native amphibians, all endemic (Allison and Eldredge 2004). Although there are no true native freshwater fish, at least 96 marine species are found as adults in freshwater and 20 species are endemic (ibid). Knowledge of invertebrate diversity is very patchy, but for many groups that have been studied, it is high. Land snail diversity is particularly high with over 750 species in Hawaii alone (Cowie 1996) and perhaps 4,000 species in the insular tropical Pacific (Cowie 2000). A summary of the number of known native and endemic species by political units for each taxonomic group is shown in Table 2 and a description of the distribution of each group follows. In the Pacific the islands that tend to have the largest and most varied biodiversity are the bigger, higher, older, volcanic and western-most islands close to land masses of continental origin. Such islands have a far greater range of habitats and niches for colonization and speciation than the low coral islands. Similarly, elevated atolls have higher biodiversity than reef islands just at sea level (Dahl 1980). However, although the more isolated oceanic islands may have fewer biological groups, those that managed to colonize such islands may have undergone intense speciation to form many new species (SPREP 1992). The Hawaiian islands, for example, are one of the most isolated island groups in the world and have no native amphibians and no endemic reptiles but do have very high rates of endemism for some taxonomic groups, approaching 98 percent for land snails and 83 percent for vascular plants. The diversity of most taxonomic groups follows the general pattern already described for biodiversity in the hotspot as a whole. Plant diversity is highest on the larger and higher volcanic archipelagos such as Hawaii, Fiji and Samoa. These three island groups, along with the Marquesas islands, have been identified by WWF/IUCN as Centers of Plant Diversity in the hotspot (van Royen and Davis 1995). Such centers are areas with high plant diversity (although the actual number of species present may not be accurately known) and high plant endemicity (ibid). Although bird diversity is not very high by global standards, endemism is very high (Allison and Eldredge 1999) as are the numbers of globally threatened birds (Stattersfield et al 1998). Threats to bird species are not a new phenomenon in the Pacific. In fact, the Pacific islands are believed to have had more than 2,000 bird extinctions since human colonization (Steadman 1995). The highest diversity and endemism is in Hawaii, Fiji and French Polynesia. There are a total of 15 Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), as defined by

9

BirdLife International (Stattersfield et al 1998) in the hotspot. These are as follows, with the number of restricted range species in each EBA in brackets.

• In Polynesia : Hawaii (15), Central Hawaiian islands (23), Laysan island (2), Samoan islands (20), Southern Cook islands (7), Rimatara (2), Marquesas islands (10), Society islands (8), Tuamotu archipelago (8), Henderson Island (4), and Fiji (27).

• In Micronesia: the Mariana islands (12), Palau (16), Yap (7), and East Caroline islands (18).

Terrestrial reptile, mammal, and amphibian diversity in the hotspot are all quite low but endemicity is high. None of these groups are very vagile, especially at dispersing across large ocean gaps. The greatest diversity of all three groups is in the west and north of the region close to the biological source area (for most of the groups) of Southeast Asia. Of the 61 native terrestrial reptiles, Fiji and Palau have the greatest diversity. The terrestrial species include seven species of snakes and 53 species of lizards, mostly skinks and geckos but also two iguanas that are endemic to the Fiji-Tonga area (Allison and Eldredge 2004). Amphibian diversity in the hotspot is extremely low with only three native amphibians known to occur, all three endemic ranid frogs of the genus Platymantis (ibid). Two of the species are endemic to Fiji, the third to Palau and all three are believed to be related to species found in the Solomons and Papua New Guinea respectively (Allison and Eldredge 1999).

10

Table 2. Numbers of Native and Endemic Species in Major Taxonomic Groups by Political Units for Polynesia-Micronesia

Native Vascular Plants(i)

Breeding Birds (ii) Native Mammals (iii)

Terrestrial Reptiles (ii)

Native Amphibians (ii)

Native Land snails (iv)

Hotspot Country, State or Territory Species

known Percent endemic

Species known

Percent endemic

Species known

Percent endemic

Species known

Percent endemic

Species known

Percent endemic

Species known

Percent endemic

American Samoa 373 3 34 0 3 0 11 0 0 0 47 -

CNMI 221 37 28 7 2 0 11 0 0 0 - - Cook Islands 284 12 27 26 1 0 1(vi) 0 0 0 45 (vi) - Easter Island - - - - 0 0 - - 0 0 0 0 FSM 782 25 40 45 6 83 - - 0 0 - - Fiji 1,628 50 74 35 6 17 25 36 2 100 - - French Polynesia 959 58 60 43 0 0 10 0 0 0 >160

** -

Guam 330 21 18 11 2 0 11 9 0 0 27 - Hawaii 1,200 83 112 (v) 55 (v) 1 0 3(vii) 0 0 0 763 98 Kiribati 22 9 26 4 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - Marshall Is 100 5 17 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 >6 - Nauru 54 2 9 11 - 0 - 0 0 0 - - Niue 178 1 15 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 - - Palau 175 ? 45 22 2 50 22 5 1 100 68 - Pitcairn Islands 76 18 19 26 0 0 - 0 0 0 ~30 ~15 Samoa 770 15 40 20 3 0 8 0 0 0 64 - Tokelau 32 0 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 - - Tonga 463 5 37 5 2 0 6 17 0 0 - - Tuvalu 44 0 9 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - - US Minor Islands

- - - - 0 0 - - 0 0 - -

Wallis & Futuna 475 15 25 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 - - Hotspot Total(v) ~5,330 57 242 68 15 73 61 49 3 100 ~4,000vi

ii ?

- no data available, ** Society Islands only. Note that species totals are not always additive because some species are distributed in more than one country. Sources: i. van Royen, P., and Davis, S.D. (1995). Centres of Plant Diversity, except Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) data which are from UNDP (2002) and Samoa data which are from Whistler (pers.comm. 2003) ii. WCMC. (1994). Biodiversity Data Sourcebook. World Conservation Press, Cambridge iii. Flannery, T. (1995). Mammals of the South-West Pacific and Moluccan islands. Cornell University Press, New York iv. Dr Robert Cowie (pers. comm.), except for Marshall Islands which is Vander Velde (pers.comm. 2003) v. Allison, A., and Eldredge, L. 2004. Polynesia and Micronesia. in Mittermier et al. Hotspots Revisited.Cemex and Conservation International vi. McCormack, G. 2002. Cook Islands Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. UNDP

11

vii. Eldredge, L., and Evenhuis, N.L. In Press. Hawaii’s Biodiversity: A detailed assessment of the numbers of species in the Hawaiian Islands. Bishop Museum, Hawaii. viii. Cowie, R. 2000. Non-indigenous land and freshwater molluscs in the islands of the Pacific: conservation impacts and threats. In Invasive Species in the Pacific: A Technical Review and Draft Regional Strategy. Sherley, G. (Ed.). SPREP, Apia. (Note that the figure includes all Pacific islands except New Zwaland and PNG).

12

There are only 15 native terrestrial mammals in the hotspot and all are bats (Allison and Eldredge 2004). Eleven species, or 56 percent of the bats, are endemic, all fruit bats (ibid). Most of the bats are found on the high islands in the north and west of the hotspot, and all, bar the single Hawaiian sub-species, Lasiurus cinereus semotus, are related to Indo-Pacific groups. None of the rat species, which inhabit most of the islands in the hotspot, are believed to be native; all are assumed to have been introduced by the early inhabitants, or by Europeans (Allison and Eldredge 1999) Invertebrates have been poorly studied globally despite the fact that invertebrates make up 99 percent of all animal species (Lydeard et al In Press). This is also true of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, where very few invertebrate groups, such as the land snails, have been studied comprehensively. Globally, the greatest snail diversity and endemism appears to be in isolated environments such as islands and in mountains (WCMC 1992). This is certainly true in the Pacific where land snail diversity is particularly high – approaching 4,000 species (Cowie 2000). In the hotspot, the greatest land snail diversity is on certain extremely isolated islands such as Rapa, Oahu and Mangareva (Cowie 1996). Pacific land snails are dominated by a relatively small number of families including the endemic Partulidae, Achatinellidae, Amastridae, and Endodontidae and the nonendemic Charopidae, Pupillidae, Helicinidae, Helicarionidae, and Succinidae. Although this ecosystem profile focuses on terrestrial biodiversity, no summary of the biodiversity of an essentially oceanic region such as Polynesia and Micronesia could be complete without a brief description of the marine biodiversity. The Western Pacific has the highest marine diversity in the world, with up to 3,000 species being recorded from a single reef (SPREP 1992). Overall, the Pacific region has the most extensive coral reef system in the world, the largest tuna fishery, and the healthiest remaining global populations of many marine species such as whales and sea turtles (UNESCO 2003a). Unlike the relatively depauperate terrestrial mammal fauna, the marine mammal fauna of the region is quite rich (Allison and Eldredge 1999). As with the terrestrial realm there is a gradient of decreasing numbers of species from west to east, but there is a second gradient from warm equatorial waters to more temperate waters away from the equator as well (Dahl 1984). There is evidence that widely distributed species are a larger component of marine, rather than terrestrial, flora and fauna (ibid). Ecosystems There have been a number of attempts to classify and map the ecosystems of the Pacific region, but none specifically for the hotspot. In 1974 IUCN classified and mapped the Pacific into 19 terrestrial biogeographical provinces based on island type, climate, and vegetation affinities. Dahl (1980) later modified the classification to 20 biogeographical provinces (terrestrial and marine) and classified the region into biomes and thence into 74 ecosystems, including about 27 terrestrial ecosystems, 12 freshwater ecosystems, and 35 marine ecosystems (ibid). Terrestrial biomes were distinguished according to vegetation type, while for the marine biomes, the substrate, as well as the dominant plant or benthic animals, was used to determine the classification.

13

The natural vegetation of the Pacific islands has been recently refined into 12 principal biomes (Mueller-Dombois and Fosberg 1998). Along the shores of most Pacific islands is salt and wind tolerant strand vegetation composed of herbs, vines and low shrubs. Fringing some sheltered shores, often where there is some freshwater source, are mangrove swamps composed of shrubs and trees. In inland areas on large, wet islands are various types of rain forest with a rich and diverse floristic composition of epiphytes, shrubs and trees. The natural vegetation at low elevations is coastal and lowland rain forest, although this has been eliminated on most islands in the hotspot. At higher elevations the rainforest changes to a lower stature, shrub and epiphyte-rich montane rainforest. At or above the cloud line on the highest islands are dwarf statured cloud forests. Above the cloud line on Hawaii and Maui the vegetation is a montane grassland or savanna mixed with xerophytic shrubs and trees while on the dry leeward slopes of some Hawaiian and Fijian islands is a mesophytic, or seasonally dry, evergreen forest composed of grasses and sclerophyllous shrubs and trees (ibid). Wetlands have not been well studied in the Pacific, except in Hawaii and current and former U.S. territories (Scott 1993). However, some general statements can be made. On the whole, the atoll states have few, if any, significant wetlands other than reef systems. On the larger volcanic islands in the hotspot there are significant areas of wetlands of two main types, intertidal mangrove forests, and freshwater lakes, marshes, swamps and rivers. Fiji in particular has a diverse variety of inland wetlands including distinct sago swamps, peat bogs and pandanus savannas. Large mangrove forests are still found in coastal areas of Fiji, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and Palau and to a lesser extent Tonga and Samoa. Mangrove forests are particularly important for fish, invertebrate and avian diversity, including a number of threatened migratory shorebirds. Freshwater wetlands such as coastal marshes, upland swamps and marshes, crater lakes and rivers cover a very small area overall but have unusual and poorly known floras and fish and invertebrate faunas. Many wetlands in the hotspot are threatened by development, pollution, invasive species and habitat conversion. After centuries of human impact, the dominant vegetation types on most islands are now human induced or anthropogenic plant associations ranging from agroforests and secondary forest to grassland and savanna. It is estimated that more than three quarters of the original vegetation of the hotspot has been damaged or destroyed (Allison and Eldredge 1999). The forested area varies significantly from country to country in the hotspot but tends to be highest on the volcanic islands such as Fiji, Palau, and Samoa with 30-60 percent forest cover and lowest on the low islands and atolls from 5-40 percent forest cover (FAO 2003). Recent assessments of globally significant ecosystems have identified a number of critical ecosystems or ecoregions in the hotspot. This could be interpreted as a strong endorsement of the choice of the hotspot by other environmental organizations. As mentioned, the hotspot includes four centers of plant diversity (van Royen and Davis 1995). Twenty two of the 867 global terrestrial ecoregions identified and mapped by WWF are in the hotspot, including all of the island groups in the hotspot (Olson et al

14

2001). Pacific terrestrial ecoregions have recently been revised slightly to take into account the latest information on invertebrate distribution (Olson pers. comm. 2003). Many of the ecoregions mapped by WWF correspond closely to the biogeographic provinces of Dahl (1980). The main ecosystem represented in these ecoregions is tropical rain forests. However, included in the 22 ecoregions are a few occurrences of tropical dry forests in Hawaii, Fiji and Micronesia and shrublands and scrub in Hawaii. WWF’s Global 200 list of the most outstanding examples of the world’s ecosystems includes three terrestrial ecoregions in the hotspot, namely Hawaii’s rain forests, Hawaii’s dry forests and the South Pacific island forests which includes the rain forests of the Cook islands, Fiji, Tuamotus, Tonga, Society islands, Samoa, Marquesas, and Tubuai (Olson and Dinerstein 1998). Assessments of global marine ecosystem diversity have identified a number of sites of global significance in the Pacific. WWF’s Global 200 list includes five outstanding coral ecoregions in the hotspot, namely Palau, Tahiti, Hawaii, Rapa Nui (Easter island), and Fiji (Olson and Dinerstein 1998). Conservation International has identified 18 global marine centers of endemism based on the number of restricted range reef fish, corals, snails and lobsters (Roberts et al 2002). There are two such centers in the Polynesia- Micronesia Hotspot, namely the Hawaiian Islands and Easter Island. A number of ecosystems and habitats in the hotspot have been identified as having national or even international significance and have been declared as protected areas- including national parks, reserves, and conservation areas. These sites are discussed in the next section. Level of Protection A protected area is defined by IUCN-The World Conservation Union (IUCN 2004a) as, “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” This definition encompasses government managed strict nature reserves through to areas managed by customary landowners for conservation and resource management. There are at least 356 protected areas recorded within the hotspot covering approximately 1,872,196 hectares (18,722 square kilometers) of land and sea, however almost one-third of these are found in Hawaii alone. Excluding Hawaii, 154 of the hotspot’s protected areas (60 percent) are terrestrial, covering an area of approximately 199,750 hectares (1,998 square kilometers) or 6.7 percent of the land area of the hotspot. Table 3 summarizes the known protected area coverage in hotspot political units. Coverage General assumptions on the effectiveness (i.e. representativeness and functionality) of the coverage of protected areas within the hotspot are subjective. Almost 40 percent of the protected areas listed in the Pacific Protected Area Database developed by Conservation International, have no recorded size. This may be because many of these areas have not

15

been delineated. This deficiency in the data has meant that the size estimates for each country and the whole hotspot are skewed and extremely misleading. For example, 17 of Fiji’s 38 listed terrestrial protected areas have no size estimates. In general, where the land area covered by a protected area is defined, it is a general estimate or a contested figure. In addition, many of the areas listed are coastal areas with a terrestrial and marine component. There is often no clear distinction between the individual size of each (marine and terrestrial). Therefore, the summarized area listed in Table 3 may incorporate the marine component of a protected area in addition to the terrestrial component. Table 3. Summary of Protected Areas by Political Units in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

Note: The data in this table represent available information for each country, state, and territory at the time of compilation. The accuracy of the data is unknown at this stage and may be inaccurate and not necessarily representative of actual area protected. The information should therefore be treated with caution and should not be used as a guide to compare country coverage or to assess general protected area coverage within the hotspot. Source: Conservation International’s “Pacific Protected Area Database” except data for Hawaii, which is from SPREP (1999). - no data available The lack of information regarding size, boundaries and, in many cases, even location information, in part reflects the unique nature of customary land tenure and resource rights within the Pacific region. Information identifying a protected area that is locally owned, used, and managed may encompass sensitive local and or traditional knowledge

Hotspot Country, State or Territory

No. of Protected Areas

Total Area Protected (marine & land)

Terrestrial Protected Areas

Land Area Protected (ha)

MICRONESIA 107 398,825 56 84,795 CNMI 12 2,323 8 2318 FSM 32 9,895 10 9,425 Guam 16 14,844 10 4,933 Kiribati 14 112,542 14 64,542 Marshall Islands 7 70,100 5 1,126 Nauru - - - - Palau 22 134,927 8 1,067 US Minor Islands 4 54,194 1 1,384 FIJI 65 77,641 38 39,641 POLYNESIA 184 1,395,730 165 384,814 American Samoa 13 5,692 11 3,959 Cook Islands 15 5,027 12 3,670 Easter island 1 6,700 1 6,700 French Polynesia 9 23,030 8 19,710 Hawaii - - 105 309,500 Niue 3 6,057 2 6,029 Pitcairn islands 1 3,730 1 3,730 Samoa 14 20,874 11 11,852 Tokelau 3 1,000 - - Tonga 16 1,010,791 11 19,634 Tuvalu 2 3,300 1 - Wallis et Futuna 2 30 2 30 TOTAL HOTSPOT 356 1,872,196 259 509,250

16

that the land and resource owners do not want revealed or publicized. In addition, most countries do not have a centralized up-to-date record of their protected areas due to limited government resources and capacity, and lack of national coordination between bodies responsible for protected areas. When considering protected area coverage for the region it is important to recognize that many Pacific “protected areas” are not dedicated primarily for the purposes of biodiversity conservation. Many are areas that have been established for utilitarian purposes of resource management as well as the maintenance of ecological systems for continued sustainable use. The conservation of biodiversity may occur but it is not the primary objective of these areas. Traditional Closures Pacific island communities have traditional systems of “setting areas aside.” These areas form part of the community’s culture, customs, and traditional resource management practices and include areas such as “mo” areas in the Marshall Islands, “ra’ui” areas in the Cook Islands, and “tabu” areas in Fiji. These areas may be temporary closure areas such as Pouara Ra’ui in the Cook Islands, closed for two years, or permanent closure areas. National governments often do not recognize these traditional conservation and resource management arrangements. The Pacific Protected Area Database only encompasses permanent protected areas where they are publicly known. Subsequently many traditionally protected areas are not listed in the Database or included in Table 3. These areas play a vital role in the conservation effort within the hotspot and should not be overlooked. Protected Area Classification Protected areas are dedicated and managed for a variety of purposes including scientific research, wilderness protection, preservation of species and genetic diversity, maintenance of environmental services, protection of specific natural and cultural features, tourism and recreation, education, sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems, and maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes (IUCN 2004a). IUCN developed six protected area management categories, illustrating the range of purposes and objectives protected areas can serve. The classification system provides a rationale for why the protected area was established. Increasingly along the continuum (from Ia – VI), emphasis is placed on direct human use and resource development. Each country, state, and territory has an individual protected area categorization system, often outlined in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, where these exist. These national interpretations exist in addition to the IUCN system. The difficulty in standardization lies in the different, and at times inaccurate, interpretations of the IUCN Classification system between countries and organizations. Some protected area sites have been allocated more than one category by different sources; the same site may be listed as a category II (National Park) in one source and as a category IV (Managed Resource Protected Areas) in another source. This may be due to the various interpretations of the classification system and to the multiple use nature of many protected areas and the different zones of management within many sites.

17

A number of sites in the hotspot have been identified as internationally significant and have been declared either World Heritage sites, Biosphere reserves, or Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites). Three areas have been declared by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as World Heritage sites for their globally significant cultural and or natural heritage. The Hawaii Volcanoes National Park was declared a World Heritage site in 1988 for its unique geology, including one of the most active volcanoes in the world. Rapa Nui National Park on Easter island was inscribed in 1995 for its unique cultural heritage and monumental basalt figures called moai. Henderson island in the Pitcairn group was inscribed in 1988 due to its pristine environment and large number of endemic terrestrial species. Many of the islands in the Central Pacific, including the Line islands and a number of reefs and islands in three countries, have been proposed as a combined World Heritage Site for their relatively intact and undisturbed natural communities with significant marine and avian biodiversity. Other sites in the hotspot, including sites in Fiji and a proposed Samoan Archipelago site, are also being assessed. There are two Man and the Biosphere reserves in the hotspot, selected by UNESCO for their outstanding biological values and potential for scientific research. These two sites are the Atoll de Taiaro in the Tuamotu group of French Polynesia - declared in 1977 due to its pristine and unusual atoll environment, with a completely enclosed inner lagoon, and the Hawaii Islands Biosphere Reserve - declared in 1980 for the unique, highly endemic and threatened biodiversity of the Hawaiian islands. Only one site in the hotspot has been declared a Ramsar wetland site- Lake Ngardok, on Palau, dedicated in 2002. This 493 ha site has significant fish and avian fauna, including the national bird of Palau, the Palau Fruit Dove or “biib” (Ptilinopus pelewensis). Other sites in the hotspot have been nominated as Ramsar sites, including Lake Lanoto’o in Samoa, but have not yet been dedicated. Many of the protected areas within the hotspot are managed for sustainable use of natural ecosystems (Category VI) but have small traditional closed (no-take) areas within them. This category is generally more appropriate within Polynesia and Micronesia because of the predominance of customary land ownership and the economic, social, cultural, and spiritual connection and dependence land and resource users have with their environment. The regional trend for networks of small locally managed areas particularly in the marine sector should be noted. Small-scale protected areas linked by networks and supported by external organizations (NGO, private, or government) are considered more socially appropriate, financially feasible and managerially sustainable within the Pacific region. The Locally Managed Marine Area Network in the Western Pacific provides a good working example of this approach. Governance A variety of protected area models and governance arrangements occur within the hotspot. Most countries within the hotspot now have a centralized system of land and resource management, in line with western approaches to governance. Commonly these systems of governance have often been superimposed onto existing customary structures.

18

Due to the unwritten nature of customary tenure and law, this has occurred in some nations relatively quickly. However, there is now a renewed emphasis on people-oriented conservation initiatives within the region such as community-based conservation areas (CBCAs)1 and co-managed protected areas. These governance structures can cover the full plethora of protected area categories and encompass a wide range of stakeholders and support including private, NGO, and government. National governments often have limited knowledge, involvement, and jurisdiction over community conservation areas. Despite this, national governments are generally the primary body responsible for reporting on the protected area status of their countries. In recognition of the great diversity of protected area governance types and the influence these have on the management of a protected area, a typology of protected area governance was recently added as an extra dimension to the IUCN protected area categories. This was an outcome of the 2003 Vth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa. A protected area will therefore be any combination of the four types of PA Governance2 and six IUCN management objective categories. This new dimension of classification will be invaluable when considering the conservation status of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot in the future. Community Conserved Areas The status and management effectiveness of most of the protected areas summarized in Table 3 is unknown at this stage. Some general conclusions can however be made. The listed protected areas for the hotspot are poorly resourced with limited management support and capacity. The practice of conservation through conventional forms of protected areas throughout the Pacific islands region appears to have been largely ineffective, having historically been applied without due respect for customary land and resource tenure arrangements or traditional practices and rights. Consequently, the hotspot does not have an effective developed protected area system in the formal “western” sense. There is new awareness of traditional approaches to conservation. The now more formalised community conserved areas must be considered when assessing protected area coverage. These areas have played, and will continue to play, a fundamental role in the conservation of biodiversity within the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot. In general, due to land tenure arrangements and customary resource rights, it appears that co-managed protected areas between communities and state or NGOs, and community conservation with government or NGO support, are the most appropriate governance models for protected areas in the hotspot. 1 Community Conserved Areas are “natural and modified ecosystems including significant biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by concerned communities through customary laws or other effective means” (IUCN 2004b). 2 A.Government Managed PAs; B. Co-managed PAs; C. Private PAs; D. Community Conserved Areas. These governance types can represent any of the IUCN Categories (Management objectives) i.e. Strict Nature Reserve or Protected Landscape/seascape.

19

CONSERVATION OUTCOMES This ecosystem profile includes a commitment and emphasis to achieve concrete conservation outcomes. To do this requires defining the set of quantifiable, justifiable targets that need to be achieved to prevent biodiversity loss. Conservation outcomes can be defined at three scales – species, site, and landscape – reflecting a simplification of a complex hierarchical continuum of ecological scales. The three scales interlock geographically through the presence of species in sites and of sites in landscapes. They are also logically connected. If species are to be conserved, the sites on which they live must be protected and the landscapes or seascapes must continue to sustain the ecological services on which the sites and the species depend. As conservation in the field succeeds in achieving these targets, they become demonstrable results or outcomes: “Extinctions Avoided” (species level), “Areas Protected” (site level), and “Corridors Consolidated” (landscape level). While CEPF cannot achieve all of the outcomes identified for a region on its own, the partnership is trying to ensure that its conservation investments are working toward preventing biodiversity loss and that its success can be monitored and measured. Therefore, the targets (hereafter “outcomes”), are the scientific underpinning for CEPF’s geographic and thematic focus for investment in Polynesia and Micronesia. In the context of the archipelagic Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, only species and site outcomes have been defined since landscape-scale outcomes are not considered appropriate. Species Outcomes Defining conservation outcomes is a bottom-up process with a definition of species-level targets first, from which the definition of site-level targets is based. The process requires detailed knowledge of the conservation status of individual species. Although this information has been accumulating in global Red Lists produced by IUCN-The World Conservation Union and partners for more than 40 years, our knowledge of the population status of most threatened species is still very deficient. This is especially true in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot, where surveys and research on rare species are very limited. The Red Lists are based on quantitative criteria under which the probability of extinction is estimated for each species. Species classified as “threatened” on the Red List have a high probability of extinction in the medium term future. These include the three IUCN categories Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU). Defining outcomes is a fluid process and, as data become available, species-level outcomes will be expanded to include other taxonomic groups that previously had not been assessed, as well as restricted-range species. Avoiding extinctions means conserving globally threatened species to make sure that their Red List status improves or at least stabilizes. This in turn means that data are needed on population trends; for most of the threatened species, there are no such data. The sheer size and scale of the hotspot and the large number of countries included in it meant that the volume of data gathered for defining outcomes was immense. A

20

comprehensive database was developed to assist this process. Data sources included published scientific papers, species recovery plans, NBSAP reports, field guides, and personal communications with many scientists. Key data sources for birds were the Threatened Birds of the World (BirdLife 2000) and Endemic Bird Areas of the World (Stattersfield et al 1998). Data on plant distributions was drawn from volumes 1-5 of Flora Vitiensis Nova by A.C. Smith (1979 to 1995), and volumes 2-5 of Pacific Plant Areas (Van Balgooy 1966-1993), for amphibians from the Global Amphibian Assessment (Frost 2002) and for mammals from Mammals of the South West Pacific and Moluccan Islands (Flannery 1995). Species outcomes in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot include all those species that are globally threatened according to the IUCN Red List (2003) at the time the outcomes were defined in the profiling process. At present, there are 476 globally threatened terrestrial species in all the countries and territories of the hotspot. Table 4 summarizes the taxonomic breakdown of the 476 threatened species in the hotspot while the full list of threatened species is shown in Appendix 1. Table 5 shows the geographic distribution of threatened species by political unit, while Figure 2 is a map of this information. Almost half (232 out of 476) of the threatened species in the hotspot are in political units that are ineligible for CEPF funding. The vast majority of the species in ineligible countries (214 species and almost half of all threatened species in the hotspot) are in Hawaii alone. The remaining 244 species in CEPF eligible countries define the full set of species outcomes for this ecosystem profile. Species outcomes for the eligible portion of the hotspot (of the 244 species) include 129 plants, 42 molluscs, 58 birds, eight mammals, six reptiles and one amphibian. Of the 244 species, 92 are Critically Endangered, 48 are Endangered and 104 are Vulnerable. Absent from the list are fish and invertebrates, other than molluscs. This is likely because of the lack of an assessment of the conservation status of these taxa for inclusion in the Red List at the time. Eighty percent of globally threatened species in eligible countries (192 out of the 244 species) are in Fiji and French Polynesia alone. The statistics imply that these two countries should be a major focus of conservation effort in the hotspot. However, it is likely that these figures are also a reflection of the amount of research effort that has been conducted in each country. Fiji and French Polynesia, being two of the wealthier countries in the hotspot, are where much of the research effort has been focused. It is clear that much more research is required in the less-studied countries of the hotspot to provide a more accurate representation of the distribution of threatened species throughout the hotspot. It must be stressed therefore that there are significant deficiencies in the Red List for the hotspot with respect to both the taxonomic representation and the geographic distribution of Red Listed species. The taxonomic deficiencies are especially serious with respect to invertebrates, fish, and plants, while the geographic deficiency is especially true for the smaller, less wealthy countries of the hotspot. Appendix 2 includes a list of provisional species outcomes, which local and regional experts suspect are globally threatened. These species are in urgent need of assessment of population and threat status. If they are

21

reassessed as globally threatened during the five-year investment period, they could become species-level targets and therefore potentially eligible for CEPF investment. Table 4. Summary of Species Outcomes (Globally Threatened Species) in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot and Those Only in Countries Eligible for CEPF Funding

Total Number of Globally Threatened Terrestrial Species in the Hotspot

Number of Globally Threatened Terrestrial Species in Countries Eligible for CEPF Funding

Taxonomic Group

Vul

nera

ble

End

ange

red

Crit

ical

ly

End

ange

red

Tota

l

% o

f kno

wn

nativ

e sp

ecie

s th

at

are

thre

aten

ed1

No.

of k

now

n ex

tinct

ions

in

the

past

200

ye

ars

Vul

nera

ble

End

ange

red

Crit

ical

ly

End

ange

red

Tota

l

Plants 94 59 90 243 4% 24 61 19 49 129 Molluscs 7 31 68 106 ~90%2 134 7 8 27 42 Birds 50 25 21 96 38% 35 33 16 9 58 Arthropods 13 2 0 15 ? 39 0 0 0 0 Mammals 2 3 4 9 56% 2 2 2 4 8 Reptiles 1 2 3 6 9% 1 1 2 3 6 Amphibians 0 1 0 1 33% ? 0 1 0 1 Totals 167 123 186 476 ? ? 104 48 92 244

Source: IUCN Red List 2003. 1. Calculated from data presented in Table 2.

2. Estimate provided by Dr Robert Cowie (pers.comm., 2004)

22

Figure 2. Distribution of Globally Threatened Terrestrial Species in the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

23

Table 5. Summary of Threatened Terrestrial Species in Political Units of the Polynesia-Micronesia Hotspot

Threatened Terrestrial Species per Political Unit

Taxonomic Group

Amer

cica

n S

amoa

Coo

k is

land

s

Eas

ter

Isla

nds

FSM

Fiji

isla

nds

Fren

ch

Pol

ynes

ia

Gua

m

Haw

aii

Kiri

bati

Mar

shal

l is

land

s

Nau

ru

Niu

e

N. M

aria

na

isla

nds

Pal

au

Pitc

airn

is

land

s

Sam

oa

Toke

lau

Tong

a

Tuva

lu

Wal

lis &

Fu

tuna

U

S M

inor

is

land

s C

EPF

elig

ible

sp

ecie

s

Plants 1 1 0 5 66 47 3 113 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 2 0 3 0 1 0 129

Molluscs 5 0 0 3 0 29 5 54 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 42

Birds 4 7 2 5 13 24 5 30 4 1 2 1 8 2 7 8 1 3 1 1 1 58

Arthropods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mammals 2 0 0 5 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 8

Reptiles 2 2 0 2 6 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 2 3 2 0 2 6

Amphibians 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Totals* 14 10 2 20 90 102 17 214 6 3 2 3 17 12 19 16 3 10 3 2 3 244

* Totals do not always add up because some species are found in more than one country.

24

Site Outcomes Recognizing that most species are best conserved through the protection of the sites in which they occur, key biodiversity areas are defined as targets for achieving site-level conservation outcomes. Key biodiversity areas are physically and/or socioeconomically discrete areas of land that harbor species of global conservation concern including globally threatened species, but also of restricted-range species and globally significant congregations. Sites are scale-independent, in other words they can be small or large, but a major criterion for their selection is that they should be, as far as possible, manageable as a single unit (i.e. a unit with a single type of land tenure). These sites need careful management to conserve the species for which they were defined. The process of defining key biodiversity areas can only be done when accurate and comprehensive data are available on the distribution of threatened species across sites. When appropriate data were available, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) tools were used to map and analyze species distributions. Such maps were useful for the identification of site outcomes, or key biodiversity areas. Digital datasets were obtained for the following taxonomic groups: birds (from BirdLife 2000), amphibians (from the Global Amphibian Assessment- Frost 2002) and corals (from Veron 1986). However, detailed species distribution maps have only been generated for a few species, and most species were only mapped to the country of occurrence and in a few cases to specific islands. Key biodiversity areas were determined by identifying the sites in CEPF eligible countries that contain populations of at least one globally threatened species. Key data sources for this analysis included published scientific articles, the IUCN regional ecosystem survey (Dahl 1980), a number of GIS data layers, data from the World Database on Protected Areas (IUCN-UNEP 2003), NBSAP reports, ecological survey data, subregional workshops, and communications with many scientists. Data on restricted-range species and globally significant congregations were not available for this analysis but could be incorporated at a later date, especially with the upcoming project of BirdLife International to define Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for the Pacific. This hotspot is likely to have several sites containing globally important congregations of seabirds; however only one site, the Phoenix Islands, was identified using this criterion (Angela Kepler, pers comm). It is a priority to refine this analysis of key biodiversity areas by systematically applying the globally singificant congregations criteria, as well as restricted-range criteria, in the near future. In total, 161 sites were identified for the hotspot, each containing at least one globally threatened species, and most of the sites contain several or many globally threatened species. A total of 243 species (all but one of the 244 eligible species) were assigned to at least one site. The only species which was not assigned to a site is the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), which does not nest in the hotspot but has been reported from Palau and Fiji. The full list of key biodiversity areas, with distribution by country, is presented in Appendix 3. Some of the sites are islands or groups of islands (typically small islands),

25

because finer-scale data for some areas were not available. Many of the sites selected have also been identified as critical sites for conservation by other environmental organizations. All sites are within one of the 20 Pacific terrestrial ecoregions (Olson et al 2001). Furthermore, 54 sites (33 percent) are, or are within, existing or planned protected areas, 70 sites (43 percent) are within an endemic bird area (Stattersfield et al 1998), and 51 sites (31 percent) are within a Center of Plant Diversity (van Royen and Davis 1995). Table 6 shows the distribution of sites by the 14 CEPF eligible countries in the hotspot. Note that there is also one transboundary site, the proposed Central Pacific World Heritage Site, which includes islands in three countries in the central Pacific: Kiribati, the United States, and the Cook Islands.

26

Table 6. Distribution of Site Outcomes (Key Biodiversity Areas) by Six Major Taxonomic Groups in CEPF Eligible Countries in the Hotspot

Percentage of eligible globally threatened species captured in the sites

Number of Sites in CEPF eligible countries

Taxonomic Group

Vul

nera

ble

End

ange

red

Crit

ical

ly

End

ange

red

Tota

l

Coo

k is

land

s

Eas

ter I

slan

ds

FSM

Fiji

isla

nds

Fren

ch

Pol

ynes

ia

Kiri

bati

Mar

shal

l is

land

s

Niu

e

Pal

au

Pitc

airn

is

land

s

Sam

oa

Toke

lau

Tong

a W

allis

&

Futu

naTr

ansb

ound

ary To

tal S

ites

Plants 100 100 100 100 1 0 11 27 18 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 2 1 0 68

Molluscs 100 100 100 100 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 12

Birds 100 100 100 100 4 0 11 27 32 3 6 0 4 3 6 1 2 1 1 102

Mammals 100 100 100 100 0 0 32 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 45

Reptiles 100 100 67 83 3 0 28 18 1 3 7 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 65

Amphibians 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Totals* 100 100 100 100 5 0 53 35 38 3 7 1 4 3 6 1 3 1 1 161

* Totals do not always add up because most sites contain a mix of species from different taxonomic groups.

27

SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES Human Demography Key human demographic features of most countries in the hotspot are high natural population growth rates, young populations (on average, around 40 percent of the population is under 14 years), increasing urbanization, and high out-migration to developed countries of the region such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. At current natural population growth rates of between 1 and 3 percent per annum, the population of the Polynesia-Micronesia region would be expected to double in the next 30 years (Micronesia) to 58 years (Polynesia) (SPC 2003a). High natural population growth rates are a result of a relatively high fertility rate but a declining death rate. The highest fertility rates are in the Micronesian countries such the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, with the lowest rates in Niue and French Polynesia. However, Pacific people are in general highly migratory and with the exception of Hawaii and most U.S. and French territories, all countries and states in the hotspot have experienced negative net migration or extensive out migration over the past decade (SPC 2003a). While much of the migration is to metropolitan Pacific rim countries, such as the United States, New Zealand and Australia, some of it is between Pacific countries, such as from Samoa to American Samoa, from Micronesian countries to Guam, and from Wallis and Futuna to New Caledonia. Migration has artificially reduced the population growth in real terms in most countries and even resulted in negative net growth rates in some countries. Negative population growth as a result of emigration to New Zealand is a particularly serious problem in Niue and Tokelau, which are struggling to maintain viable economies and infrastructures with a diminishing labour force.

While the majority of Pacific islanders still live in rural areas, urban settlements are growing rapidly throughout the hotspot. As elsewhere in the world, the greater development and infrastructure and services available in urban areas has encouraged internal migration from rural to urban areas and from outer islands to regional centers and national capitals. This is especially true in Micronesia, which is more urbanized than Polynesia and also has a higher urban growth rate (SPC 2003a). The population density in many townships in the Pacific, but especially on the atolls such as Majuro, Funafuti and Tarawa, is reaching high levels, and is associated with health, sanitation, housing, and infrastructural problems (UNDP 1994). The high proportion of young people and adults in the Polynesia-Micronesia region has resulted in pressures on infrastructure and services. Unemployment and underemployment of young adults is a major development issue in many hotspot states. Most PICTs are diversifying their economies to meet demands for semi-formal and informal employment but this is compounded by the general lack of vocational and technical skills amongst the youth.

28

Economy Pacific island economies are highly vulnerable to external economic fluctuations, changing trade policies, and environmental shocks. The susceptibility of economies stems from an interplay of factors such as remoteness from world markets, a high dependency on exports of agricultural commodities that have relatively low value on international markets, geographical dispersion of islands, vulnerability to natural disasters, small internal markets, and limited natural resource bases (UNDP 1999). The ecological dependency of Pacific economies and societies is well recognized. Pacific island societies have traditionally depended on the environment and natural resources for food, shelter, water, and medicine. However, as aspirations and expectations of Pacific communities have changed, economies are becoming increasingly dualistic with the co-existence of monetary and subsistence economies. At the same time, lifestyles are increasingly materialistic and westernized. Agriculture and fisheries remain the mainstay of the economies of most of the independent hotspot countries and are particularly important because they support both subsistence economies and export industries that contribute significantly to economic growth. Formerly, agricultural exports of copra, cocoa, and bananas were principal sources of foreign exchange for many PICTs, but their importance has declined as production has increased in other regions, especially South America. Sugar remains a major export from Fiji, but may decrease in importance as preferential access to the European market is phased out under World Trade Organization rules. Other extractive industries such as logging and mining are not significant industries in the independent countries of the hotspot, except in Fiji. Tourism is an important industry in some hotspot countries and territories, especially Fiji, the Cook Islands, French Polynesia, CNMI, and Guam, and is becoming increasingly important to many other island economies. Given the large marine area included in the Exclusive Economic Zones of most PICTs, development of offshore fisheries is one of the few industries with significant future development potential. The fisheries industry contributes approximately 11 percent of the combined GDP of all PICTs and about half of the value of all exports from the region (Gillet et al 2001). Economic growth of many hotspot countries has been very slow in recent years with per capita incomes stagnant in many countries (UNDP 1999). Hawaii, the U.S. territories, and French Polynesia are the wealthiest, most developed, and industrialized political entities in the hotspot, while the independent atoll states of Kiribati and Tuvalu and the French Territory of Wallis and Futuna have the lowest GDP per capita (Crocombe 2001). Economic development within the hotspot varies significantly from country to country depending on natural resource endowments and socio-political affiliations with metropolitan nations. Because of their small size and lack of terrestrial resources, most hotspot states have relatively limited opportunities for development and are highly dependent on aid and remittances. In general, the atoll states are the most economically vulnerable because of their small, dispersed land masses and limited terrestrial resource bases, while it is the larger, volcanic island countries such as Palau, FSM, Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga that lead in terms of economic diversification and potential.

29

Aid and remittances are likely to remain an important feature of the economies of the independent states of the hotspot. The amount of aid received per person in the Pacific is the highest of any region in the world but is declining (Crocombe 2001). Overseas development assistance from bilateral donors particularly the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), the European Union, the Japanese International Cooperatio